Due to the article published on Monday, the gay debate continued on Tuesday and Wednesday.
A letter from the conservatives:
What’s next? Same sex marriages?
Anton Chan
Mr Ho Kwon Ping is wrong to propose the acceptance of gays into Singapore society because accepting a gay lifestyle would have a tremendous impact on society as a whole in terms of religious beliefs, social well-being and families.
As a Christian, I oppose legalising a gay lifestyle in Singapore because it’s against my beliefs. As a father of three teenagers, I care because I don’t want my children to be affected by such a lifestyle.
Imagine if we allow the acceptance of such a lifestyle in Singapore. What next? Legalise same sex marriages? Legalise adoption of children for gays?
Where are we as a socially-conservative society heading towards?
Soon gays will claim the right for social acceptance in all areas including education, welfare et cetera. What effect will this have on the next generation of children and parents who wish that their children will grow up normally and produce children in the normal course of their being?
The only strong contention in Mr Ho’s proposal is the so-called gay leading edge in the “creative class”. Doesn’t our society have many other people to develop and nurture? Why are we so eager to promote creative class talent in Singapore? So that we can become a more tolerant society to accept whatever lifestyle these bring? Definitely no.
I would like to borrow a similar argument by Attorney-General Walter Woon regarding the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). In “None above the law” (Sept 8), he said: “If Dr Lee (Wei Ling) disagrees with Hota, she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended … But until Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oaths and Declarations Act, they remain the law of Singapore.”
If anyone disagrees with the law for gays as enacted by Parliament, he/she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended … But until Parliament amends or repeals the law of Singapore for gays, it remains the law of Singapore.
What irks me most is when people start of their argument with "As a Christian, I oppose ...". How come they never say "As a thinking Christian" or "As a logical and rational adult"?
Because they don't think and they're not logical. If they do, they would realise how stupid and flawed their arguments are. It is as if being of a certain religion precludes the usage of the cerebrum.
When a person claims to be a Christian, it is implicitly saying that they are just taking the Bible word for word, no questions asked. More than 10 years of education down the drain.
If someone were to follow the Bible to the word, then why doesn't he ask for laws to make an offense for adultery? Why not push for and make it a punishable offense for anyone who works on Sunday?
Why not impose one's beliefs on everyone else? Because apparently, there is no such thing as live and let live in the minds of the narrow-minded religious. It is "I am right and they are wrong" kind of mentality.
Of course, I am only referring to those so called "educated" people who can't think for themselves. There are pastors and Christians who believed that everyone is God's creation and each of us deserves happiness, freedom and love. But unfortunately the latter number less than the former.
In addition, the writer totally went off tangent and did not rebut from the rule of law perspective.
I am not sure why I keep giving blogspace to these kind of letters. Sigh.
3 comments:
"When a person claims to be a Christian, it is implicitly saying that they are just taking the Bible word for word, no questions asked ..."
I am sure you don't mean this as a stereotype, do you?
There are Christians and there are Christians. Not everyone who claims to be one is one, even as not everyone who calls Jesus, Lord, is known by Jesus. Also the tree is to be known by its fruits.
"Why not impose one's beliefs on everyone else?"
Thus Jesus said look at the beam in your own eye before you point out the speck in your brother's.
"There are ... Christians who believed that everyone is God's creation and ... But unfortunately the latter number less than the former."
Or maybe just the more silent, the wiser, and who gives with the right hand in a manner that even the left hand does not know.
Just to add: until a person opens his mouth, even a fool can be thought wise.
Anton Chan reveals himself to be a fool.
What he is saying is that if the law of the land is amended to decriminalise gays, it will be OK for him, despite it going against his personal beliefs.
What a hypocrite.
I suppose he is also one of those who is personally against Singapore having casinos.
But then he is merely a fool.
As I'm filling out the paperwork for my Singapore employment pass I see a question asking what my religion is. How can that possibly have anything to do with an employment pass? And I thought things were weird in the US when it comes to religion. I can see I'm going to have to get used to a few things there...
Post a Comment